Re: Re[2]: [Fwd: My future of HTML position paper] - Navigation

david_richmond@nl.compuware.com writes:
 >      This indicates that the navigation parts of a page are important to 
 >      the page and therefore are a candidate for some special HTML treatment 
 >      (a la that given to Tables and Lists).
 >      
As I said at the meeting, I feel strongly that navigation bars are
*style*, not content. What sort of navigation can *not* be derived from
structured content with an appropriate style mechanism? I don't think
CSS can do it, but thats not the point.

 >      versions, but 'dropping' HTML would not be acceptable to most people 
 >      especially given the current, and growing, installed base.

I read the sense of the meeting last week as agreeing that one good
way forward was first to develop a set of XML libraries which
re-expressed the HTML idioms, and from that re-building an HTML SGML
DTD to replace 4.0.

If this proposed WG does NOT deal with the XML questions, then what
will it do? simply add some more tags like <navigation> to the already
bloated set -- surely few people want that outcome? 

Anyway, forget XML, call it SGML. Its still important to break HTML
into SGML pieces and understand now to join it together again in
various ways, for all sorts of reasons.

Sebastian

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 1998 11:05:50 UTC